Question: The Christening of Victoria, The Princess Royal Painting

My grandfather has a beautiful painting of Queen' Victoria's christening (1841) and born in 1840. I am trying to find a list of people who attended the event so I can pin point who is in the painting.

The painting that your grandfather has is a reproduction of a work called The Christening of Victoria, The Princess Royal by Charles Robert Leslie. The original, an oil on canvas measuring 129.5 x 182.9 cm, is in The Royal Collection.

The Princess, who was born on November 21, 1840, was christened on her parent's first wedding anniversary, February 10, 1841. The christening robe that she wears is made from Honiton lace and white satin and was worn by all royal babies until 2008, when it was retired due to its age and fragile state. The baptismal lily font was commissioned by Queen Victoria. Made of Silver gilt, and measuring by height 43 cm; and diameter 43 cm, it is one of only two silver English fonts. The font is in the shape of a water lily, supporting a large shell. Inside the rim of the small shell were water lilies floating around the edge and water was specially brought from the River Jordan. The lilies were considered to represent purity and water lilies were associated with new life. This font has been used at all royal christenings since 1841.

Princess Victoria was christened in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace by William Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury. Her godparents were Leopold, King of the Belgians, Ernst I (her paternal grandfather), he was not present during the event and the Duke of Wellington stood proxy. The other godparents were Prince Augustus, Duke of Sussex (her great-uncle), Dowager Queen Adelaide, widow of King William IV, the Duchess of Gloucester (her great-aunt), and the Duchess of Kent (her grandmother).

The painting commemorating the event depicts, The Dowager Queen Adelaide on the left of the font, who named the child Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa. Others in the painting include the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent, King Leopold I of the Belgians, and the Duke of Sussex (all in the group on the left). Queen Victoria and Prince Albert are on the right of the font.
© Marilyn Braun 2010

Question: Does Prince Charles own a yacht?

I read a news article that said prince charles and camilla rented a yacht to travel thru the caribbean some time ago but also read an article that said president bill clinton was on ' prince charles yacht in 1992 for Rio conference on enviromental protection '. so I was wondering if he owns a yacht or just rents one from time to time?

As far as I'm aware, Prince Charles does not own a yacht. The Royal Family did, at one point, have the use of the Royal Yacht Britannia to entertain dignitaries over the years including Sir Winston Churchill, Rajiv Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. This yacht was decommissioned in 1997.

Prince Charles has chartered or been lent the use of a yacht in the past. In 1991 he was loaned the Alexandros by Greek shipping magnate John Latsis. This was for a reported 'second honeymoon' with his then wife, Diana Princess of Wales. He also used the yacht in 2002 for a cruise with Camilla Parker Bowles. In 2008 he chartered one of the most expensive private yachts, the £50 million, 245ft Leander from car parks tycoon Sir Donald Gosling for an official tour of the Carribean Islands. The first time since the Royal Yacht Britannia was scrapped in 1997 that a member of the Royal Family has hired a private vessel for an official overseas visit.

According to Clarence House, the Prince of Wales chartered the yacht not for reasons of comfort but but to minimize his carbon footprint. If you're going to be environmentally friendly, might as well do it in style.

© Marilyn Braun 2010

Question: Courtesy titles

If the daughter of a duke or marquess or earl who bore the courtesy title "Lady Mary Smith," married Mr. John Jones who was subsequently knighted by the Queen, would she continued to be called "Lady Mary Jones" or would she be called "Lady Jones" by virtue of her husband's being Sir John Jones?

With courtesy titles there is a difference between those who possess the title birth and those who acquire it by marriage.

I will offer Lady Helen Windsor as an example. As the daughter of the Duke of Kent, she is entitled to the courtesy title of 'Lady'. When she married Timothy Taylor, she took his surname and became Lady Helen Taylor. Now if Timothy Taylor were to receive a knighthood, she would still be Lady Helen Taylor because her courtesy title as the daughter of a Duke, outranks her husband's knighthood.

Another example would be the late Diana, Princess of Wales' sister, Lady Jane Fellowes. When she was born, her father was Viscount Althorp and she was known as The Honorable Cynthia Jane Spencer. Upon her father becoming Earl Spencer in 1975, she became The Lady Cynthia Jane Spencer (though she prefers to use her middle name). When she married, she took her husband's surname and became Lady Jane Fellowes. Her husband, Robert Fellowes, was knighted, but this did not change her title, as the daughter of an Earl, this again outranked his knighthood.

However, in 1999, Sir Robert Fellowes was granted a Life Peerage and became Baron Fellowes, of Shotesham in the County of Norfolk. When this happened Lady Jane took the style Baroness Fellowes, or more informally Lady Fellowes, which, believe it or not, is actually a demotion as Baron is the lowest rank of the peerage and Lady Jane is the daughter of an Earl - one of the top three peerages.

Now, in the reverse, when the husband is given a knighthood, the wife is entitled to be known as Lady (husband's surname). An example of this would be Paul McCartney. When he was knighted, his wife took the courtesy title Lady McCartney - at the time this was Heather Mills McCartney. She could not be known as Lady Heather McCartney because she took the title from her husband instead of her father. Unlike Lady Helen Taylor, who takes the title from her father instead of her husband.

© Marilyn Braun 2009

Question: Charles and Camilla's poppies

I have noticed in many pictures of Charles and Camilla that they are both wearing two poppies. Is this a royal thing? Does it mean something special?

Since Charles and Camilla first arrived in Canada on most public appearances they have worn two poppies. This has been the subject of a great deal of curiousity. Why the two poppies? What does it mean?

The two poppies that the couple are wearing are the British paper version and the Canadian one. The design of the Canadian poppy consists of petals made of red plastic with a felt lining and black centre held on by a pin. The British paper version is sold by the Royal British Legion through their annual Poppy Appeal. Some have suggested that by wearing the two poppies they are making a symbolic gesture of support for British and Canadian veterans.

Poppies became a symbol of Rememberance after the poem In Flanders Fieldcommemorated the flower. It was written in 1915 by a Canadian doctor named John McCrae after he witnessed the death of a friend. During the funeral McCrae noticed wild poppies blooming between the graves and this inspired his famous poem. After its publication it became the most popular poem of the First World War. In part because of its popularity, the poppy was adopted as the Flower of Remembrance for the war dead of Britain, France, the United States, Canada and other Commonwealth countries.

© Marilyn Braun 2009

Question: The Windsor name

How far does the name Windsor go back? Does that apply to all of the Kings and Queens until there where no last names at all?

The Windsor name goes back to 1917. Prior to that point members of the royal family did not have a surname but the name of the house or dynasty which they belonged.

At the time King George V was head of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty. During the First World War, in reaction to anti-German sentiment, the King changed the name from the German sounding Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor; chosen after the ancient castle of the same name. This change applied to both the Royal House and as a surname for his family should one be required.

This change was made official at a meeting of the Privy Council on July 17, 1917. The King declared that 'all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria, who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor'. This surname is used by all male and unmarried female descendants of King George V. For instance: Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Gabriella Windsor, Lord Nicholas Windsor.

© Marilyn Braun 2009

Question: Does the Queen wear wigs?

I say QE II has worn wigs in public for many decades. Have you talked about this in your blog? My sister says she wears expensive wigs . Michael Fagan said he saw her wigs on her makeup table. Can you verify this? I would appreciate your
insight. I say she wears wigs and does so as a convenience.

In all of the books I've read about her, I don't think I've ever heard about her wearing wigs. I'm going to have to say no, I don't think that the Queen wears wigs. Yes, when Michael Fagan broke into the Queen's bedroom in 1982 there were reports that he had seen a wig. The Sun, a tabloid newspaper, reportedly paid his wife, Christine for the rights to her story. Amongst the tantalizing revelations, the Queen wore a shortie nightgown and had the figure of a 16 year old. Viewing photos of her circa 1982, can you picture her owning either?

The Queen has had the same hairstyle, with some slight variations, for the last eighty years. Towards the end of the 1940's, when it was almost to her shoulders, was the longest length she wore it. In the 1950's she had the petalled pin-curl style, fashionable at the time. In the 1960's it resembled a football helmet circa 1938 and she has more or less stuck with this particular look since then.

Unlike her late sister, Princess Margaret, the Queen has never experimented with her looks. She's never worn elaborate updos or changed the color and she seems blessed with hair that hasn't thinned as she has gotten older. When it started to go gray in the late 1980's she stopped dying it altogether. Like her mother and grandmother, the Queen has had the same ubiqitious style - handy for keeping the look of stamps and currency consistent. The only instance of false hair I can find is that her grandmother, Queen Mary, as a young woman, wore an artificial fringe attached to the front hairline called a 'bang'.

She has used the same hairstylist, Ian Carmichael, for the last 11 years. If she wears wigs then only her hairdresser knows for sure.

© Marilyn Braun 2009

Question: Title of Queen

Would Camilla attain the title if Charles ascends to the throne? Would Diana have attained this title if she were still Charles wife? Who would ascend to the throne following Charles death?

At the time of their wedding in 2005 there was a lot of controversy over what Camilla's title would be upon her marriage to Charles. Legally she is entitled to be called Princess of Wales but because the title is so associated with Diana, decided to take the title Duchess of Cornwall instead. When Charles becomes king the official line is that she will be known as H.R.H. The Princess Consort. Legally she would be Queen but Camilla reportedly does not want the title of Queen. This move might also be to placate members of the public who would be against her being known as Queen Camilla.

Had Diana lived, and still been married to Charles, she would have become Queen Diana in due course.

Next in line to the throne following Charles' death would be his elder son Prince William. Should something happen to William then the next in line would become monarch - Prince Harry.

© Marilyn Braun 2009

Question: Prince William and Prince Harry - Peace Makers?

I was thinking about the recent (media) strife HRH William & HRH Harry have gotten in & how their family prefers them challenging their efforts in defense forces, & as a hypothetical was wondering how possible (if they wanted 2) either of the Princes "taking" U.S. president Barack Obama place in The Israeli–Palestinian peace talks?

No, it's unlikely that either Prince William or Prince Harry would be able to, as you say, 'take the place' of President Obama in these talks.

The main reason for this is that as they are members of the British royal family; they cannot do anything to make the monarch look partial to a particular side. The Queen has to be strictly neutral. By remaining so, the Queen provides a sense of stability and continuity in times of political and social changes. Members of the royal family support the Queen, which is the reason why you don't see any member of the family involved in politics.

In regards to Prince's William and Harry's involvement in the defense forces, they are following a long-standing tradition within the family. At one point, a military career for princes was seen as the best possible occupation for them. However, this training would not, in any way, make them qualified to involve themselves in these types of discussions. Also, with their recent actions in the media - landing helicopters in their girlfriend's backyard, or in Harry's case - wearing pink nail-polish and being photographed in a wig and a bra - it doesn't instill confidence in any abilities they might have given the opportunity. In my opinion I feel safer leaving these issues to the professionals.

© Marilyn Braun 2009

Related article

Royal Military Service

Question: How can Charles be king?

How can Charles become king? You say his marital status does not matter, nor whom he marries (unless she is a Roman Catholic). But then, why did Edward have to abdicate when he wed Wallis Simpson?

Yes it does seem rather unfair that Charles was allowed to marry Camilla and Edward had to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson. But putting aside all of the legal, moral and religious issues, the one main reason is that times are different. It would be interesting to see how Edward and Wallis' relationship would be handled nowadays. There seems to be one common denominator between the two couples: Divorce. Unlike now, it wasn't as common back in 1936 and there was a stigma attached to it. Along with being divorced Wallis also had several strikes against her: She was married at the time, she was an American, she had a reputation, and she was a commoner. Her nationality and social standing would not be an issue now, but in 1936 they were considered strikes against her.

In fact, legally Edward could have married Wallis Simpson but this would have caused a constitutional crisis. Unlike Charles, the King faced formidable opposition, not just from his government but from the Dominions; all of whom felt that Wallis was not consort material. There was also the Church of England which did not recognize divorce nor remarriage of a person whose previous spouse was still alive. The Church also did not recognize her first divorce. Marrying her would have been in conflict with Edward's role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. A morganatic marriage was proposed (a marriage is one in which the wife of the Sovereign and any children who may be born of the marriage, are denied any claim upon the Sovereign's status, rights or privileges. This would have required special legislation, which the government was not prepared to do. The King then had three options - reject the advice of his ministers (a course which he never contemplated), renounce Wallis (which he refused to do) or abdicate. Edward felt that he could not continue in his role as King without Wallis, so he chose to abdicate.

Like Edward, Charles viewed his relationship as non-negotiable. However, as mentioned, times had changed. Prince Charles’ previous wife had died so there was no bar to his marrying again. The Church recognized Camilla’s divorce on the grounds of adultery. The Church had also changed its position on divorce. Allowing for couples to be remarried in a civil ceremony. The couple also had the support of the royal family, the government, the Church of England. The Commonwealth realms did not pose any opposition to the union. There was also the factor that the couple obviously would not produce any children. It would have been interesting to see what the reaction would have been had there been no legitimate heir (Prince William). Despite times having changed, the attitude could have been different with the succession at stake.

© Marilyn Braun 2009

Question: The Duchess of Windsor's Engagement Ring

Hello, do you know anything about the engagement ring given to Wallis Simpson from Edward? I think is was an emerald but have never found a photograph of it.

You're right, photos of the emerald ring are scarce! This is the closest image I can find in the public domain.

Yes, it was an emerald ring. The ring itself is a rectangular step-cut emerald with cut-corners weighing 19.77 carats within a stylized leaf border set with brilliant-cut diamonds. It was purchased in 1936 from Cartier and originally had a platinum mount, inscribed: We are ours now 27 x 36. It was remounted in a gold setting by Cartier in 1958.

There are a few books with photos of the ring. The Sotheby's auction catalogue: The Jewels of the Duchess of Windsor sold for the benefit of The Pasteur Institute. There is another book, with a similar title called The Jewels of The Duchess of Windsor by John Culme and Nicholas Rayner. Note that if you want to buy the auction catalogue it needs to have 'sold for the benefit of the Pasteur Institute' in the title. The book by Culme and Rayner is not the catalogue. Both books are well worth the price if you are interested in royal jewels.

Strand books in New York City sometimes has copies of these books, at affordable prices and shipping. I wouldn't go through Amazon or Alibris as they charge exorbitant prices for their rare books.

Also, if you're interested in all things relating to the Duke and Duchess you might want to check out the following website: The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Society.

I hope this has answered your question.

© Marilyn Braun 2009


Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Related articles:

Question: The Duke and Duchess of Windsor's wedding rings

Royal Engagement Rings

Some Royal Questions and Answers

I love receiving royal questions and answering them. Some of them have inspired full articles, other times the questions only require a short answer. This is unfortunate since they are no less interesting. Sometimes I can't answer them, whether it's due to the scope or lack of expertise. In those cases I try to point the person in the right direction. I've decided to post some of the questions and answers. I hope you enjoy them.

Do you know the exact manufacturer and the name of Diana's wedding china that she chose?

As far as I can locate: Royal Worcester Evesham. You may want to confirm this with the General Trading Company where she was registered at the time of her wedding.

I have an item I'd like to sell [insert item description]. Can you tell me the value of it?

No. I'm not an expert on royal commemoratives. You may want to check with a local antique dealer who sells royal commemoratives, they might be able to assist. You could also try a search on eBay to see if someone is selling this item or one similar.

What do Prince Edward and Princess Sophie do? I have heard nothing about them for a long time in the media or blogs.

Any current information and activities of members of the royal family can be found by going to the official site: http://www.royal.gov.uk/

I have some royal ancestors/history in my family. Can you tell me more about this?

Lucky you! No, I can't help with this. You may want to check out a genealogist or possibly a royal historian, they might be able to help you.

I've seen pictures of certain jewellery (brooches, earrings, rings..) worn by Camilla/The Queen, can you tell me more about the them?

I've written a few articles about royal jewels and tiaras. While the Queen does wear familiar brooches, some of Camilla's jewels are new or have never been worn publicly(or we haven't paid attention until now). Some of the "newer" brooches the Queen has worn might have come from the collection of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother or are redesigned older pieces. There are some very good books on royal jewels in general that you may find useful (see related links)There are also several threads on royal jewels at The Royal Forums (Scroll down). You might find your answer there.

Do you know where Kate Middleton is?

I wish I had that kind of insider information! Unfortunately I don't. For the best source of Kate updates go to The Kate Middleton Report - All Kate, all the time.

At what time did the British monarchy lose executive power over the United Kingdom? Why did this happen, and who was head of state at the time?

And

Has the roles of Princesses changed over time? (Are they considered more important today than they were yesterday?) What must a Princess do to gain popularity? Are there any qualities she should possess to win people’s hearts?

You know, there's nothing more satisfying that cracking open a book and doing your own homework...

© Marilyn Braun 2008

Related Articles:

Recommended Books: Royal Jewels
Jewels fit for a Queen
Question: The Queen's Pearls
Camilla's Tiara
Royal Focus: The Spencer Tiara

Question: The Duke and Duchess of Windsor's wedding rings

....I have not found, anywhere, any information on the wedding rings of the Duke and Duchess, and this is my query: Is there a photograph, or description of the rings – somewhere? Were the Duke and Duchess buried wearing the rings, or, were the rings auctioned at Sotheby’s with the Duchess’ jewelry (after her death)?

Thank you for your questions!

You're right, there doesn't seem to be a lot of photos of the wedding rings out there. But given the fabulous collection of jewels that the Duchess owned, this is not surprising. While there are some photos of her with a plain ring on her wedding finger, they're not close up. For the most part she seems to have been photographed with her engagement ring; a large flawless emerald cut from the size of a bird's egg that belonged to a Mogul Emperor. So while she might have worn her wedding ring everyday, the size of her engagement ring would have dwarfed it. Looking at wedding photos some of them show her wearing just the wedding ring. Incidentally, the gloves she wore for her wedding were designed to open on the ring finger of the left hand. In some photos during the Second World War, where she is contributing to the war effort, you can see her wearing just the wedding ring. Anything larger would have been inappropriate. Many photos show her wearing gloves so the rings would not be seen. She was said to be rather meticulous about her grooming and she had manicures everyday, but her hairdresser recalled: She hated her hands. She always sat with her hands between her knees trying to hide them. Interesting then that she wore such extravagantly large rings that drew attention to them.

In most books about her there is very little reference to the wedding rings. Considering the circumstances, that would have been a minor detail. One book refers to it as being made from gold mined from the Welsh hills with a platinum copy auctioned in 1987 at Sotheby's. There are several wedding rings listed in the Sotheby's sale: lot #142 lists a 'platinum wedding ring, English, 1937, inscribed 'Wallis 18-10-35 Your David 3-VI-37' the two dates commemorate when the Prince proposed and the date of their marriage. In lot #177 there are 'Four wedding rings, all inscribed'. In photos the Duke of Windsor wears two rings on the fifth finger of his left hand, which seems to be the place royal men wear their wedding rings. Why there are five wedding rings in the auction, and whether one of them would have belonged to the Duke of Windsor is anybody's guess. Maybe he was buried with his but I highly doubt it.

Unfortunately I cannot locate photos specifically of these rings. Your best bet would be to see if you can purchase the auction catalogue which is rare and depending on where you look, very expensive, Sotheby's The Jewels of the Duchess of Windsor sold for the benefit of the Pasteur Institute. Or The Jewels of the Duchess of Windsor, by John Culme and Nicholas Rayner, written after the auction and a more affordable option. You might find photographs there.

Update: Although it's an interesting book, The Jewels of the Duchess of Windsor by John Culme and Nicholas Rayner (written after the auction) does not have a photo of the wedding rings. Nor does the official auction catalogue.

Sources:

The Windsor Style by Suzy Menkes

The Royal Jewels by Suzy Menkes

Famous Jewelry Collectors by Stefano Papi & Alexandra Rhodes

The Windsor Years by Lord Kinross

Edward VIII - The Road to Abdication - by Frances Donaldson

The Secret Life of The Duchess of Windsor by Charles Higham

The Windsor Story by J. Bryan III and Charles J.V. Murphy

Related Articles:

Royal Engagement Rings

Jewels fit for a Queen

© Marilyn Braun 2008

Question: Court Mourning and Coronation planning

What is the mourning length the british government do have to wait when a monarch dies to crown the next king or queen? What are the steps to the next coronation please?

Thanks for your question.

There are four categories of mourning - general, court, service or family.

General Mourning: A period of mourning to be observed by the general public but nowadays usually restricted to the death of the Sovereign, lasting only a few days until the funeral. Formally adopted for other members of the royal family and sometimes lasting several weeks

Court Mourning. Observed by members of the Royal Family, Households of the Royal Family, The Queen's representatives both at home and abroad and their staffs. With instructions on dress codes and official and social engagements prescribed. But length of court mourning varies. In King George VI's case it lasted from his death, February 6th, 1952 until May 31, 1952.

Service mourning: Observed by the Armed Services on the death of the Sovereign

Family mourning Observed by the Royal Family and by Households of the royal family when in personal attendance only.

The length of mourning varies greatly. Queen Victoria practically made mourning into an art form, mourning her husband Prince Albert for 40 years. Mourning could go on for months, sometimes up to a year in the case of the death of a Sovereign, during which time the court would move through degrees of mourning (full to half-mourning) with strict provisions for appropriate attire and social engagements for both the royal court and for the public. At the time of Queen Victoria's death court mourning was prescribed to last until January 24, 1902. The public was directed to wear deep mourning until March 6th, 1901 and half-mourning until April 17, 1901.Nowadays the period is significantly reduced and the length of time for public mourning and appropriate attire is left up to the individual.

Funerals are arranged through the Lord Chamberlands office. Funerals of sovereigns are organized by the Earl Marshall who is also responsible for the Coronation arrangements. The coronation of the new Sovereign follows some months after his or her accession. The length of time vs the date of Coronation probably has more to do with the complex planning involved than with any particular period of mourning. Some examples of the length of time between accession and coronation are:

Queen Victoria: Acceded to the throne on June 20, 1837. Coronation held on June 28, 1838

King Edward VII : He became King upon the death of his mother, Queen Victoria on January 22, 1901. His Coronation was planned for June 26, 1902 but postponed to August 9, 1902 following an attack of appendicitis which required an emergency operation.

King George V: Date of accession May 6, 1910. Coronation June 22, 1911

King Edward VIII succeed to the throne on January 20, 1936. He abdicated while his coronation was being planned. The date for this was May 12, 1937. Upon his abdication on December 11, 1936, his younger brother became King George VI. Instead of postponing the coronation, the date was kept the same.

Queen Elizabeth II - Date of accession February 6, 1952. Date of Coronation June 2, 1953.

Examples of current length of royal mourning. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother died on March 30th, 2002. Her funeral on was on April 9th and members of the royal family observed mourning until April 19th. Her daughter, Princess Margaret, died on February 9th 2002 and mourning was observed from that date to the day of her funeral February 15, 2002.

As for the preparation surrounding coronations, the official site is your best resource.

For more information on Coronations, you might find the following book useful: Coronation: From the 8th to the 21st Century by Roy Strong

Thanks again for your question

© Marilyn Braun 2008

Question: Princess Diana's wedding bouquet

Do you happen to know how much Princess Diana's wedding bouquet weighed? My sister had an exact replica of her bouquet for her wedding. I was only 13 at the time but i recall it being extremely heavy.

Thank you for your question.

The wedding bouquet that Diana, Princess of Wales carried for her wedding in 1981 was made by Longmans Florists, who also designed and made the bouquet for the Queen when she married in 1947. The bouquet was a gift from the Worshipful Company of Gardeners.

The bouquet, 42" long and 15" wide, was of a cascading shower design similar to those from Edwardian times. It set a trend for wedding bouquets which up to that point at been comparably small. The designers of her wedding dress, David and Elizabeth Emanuel wanted Diana to have a large bouquet, as a small one would have obviously been dwarfed by the size of her dress. The flowers that comprised the bouquet were:

Gardenias
Stephanotis
Freesia
Odontoglossum Orchid (Royal Wedding)
Lily of the Valley
Earl Mountbatten Roses
Hedera (Ivy)
Tradescantia
Myrtle
Veronica (Hebe)

It's worth noting that it is a royal wedding tradition for a sprig of myrtle, from the bush grown from the original myrtle in Queen Victoria's wedding bouquet, to be included. The Earl of Mountbatten roses were a tribute to Prince Charles' "Uncle Dickie" Lord Louis Mountbatten, who had died in 1979. The yellow color of the rose incidentally inspired the bridesmaid dresses.

Three bouquets were made, one for the practice the night before the wedding, the second was delivered to St. James' Palace. The third was taken to Buckingham Palace on the day of the wedding and used for the formal photographs. As per royal wedding tradition, at least one of them would have been placed after the wedding on the tomb of the Unknown Warrior in Westminster Abbey.

Unfortunately, the Longman family sold their business a few years ago so there's no way to ask them about the specific weight. But according to the press release for the wedding bouquet: 'It is well balanced,and although heavier than most carried nowadays the distribution should not be too tiresome for the Bride.'

Whatever the weight, lets hope there was no bouquet toss; she could have seriously injured someone in the process!

Update: I was able to find out the information on the weight of the bouquet. It weighed approximately between 2-3 kilo's. Thank you to Yoko Hansen for providing this info!

© Marilyn Braun 2008

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

Bouquet Information Source:

A Dress for Diana by David Emanuel and Elizabeth Emanuel

Related article:

Royal Weddings

Question: What is an Earl?

I've heard of the designation Earl of an area but what would an Earl's wife's designation be?

I actually don't know what an Earl is either, perhaps you could explain.

Thank you for your questions.

The title of Earl is part of the British Peerage, and along with the title of Baron, is one of the oldest peerages. It ranks below a Marquess and above a Viscount. It derives from the Middle English "erl" meaning warrior, nobleman. While we no longer associate 'warrior' with an earldom, the 'nobleman' remains the correct definition. Earldoms tend to take their names from towns, or surnames/families (Earl Spencer) with ones named for counties retaining more prestige. When the Earldom of Snowdon was bestowed on Antony Armstrong-Jones it was a nod to his Welsh ancestry. Usually it is a title that is inherited by the eldest son, who is known by a subsidary or courtesy title prior to that: (Earl Spencer) Viscount Althorp, (Earl of Snowdon) Viscount Linley, Earl of Wessex (Viscount Severn). Daughters are titled 'Lady' and younger sons have 'The Honorable' before their names. An earldom normally passes to the eldest son. Only under exceptional circumstances does it pass to a daughter, as in the case of Patricia, Countess of Mountbatten.

Unlike Prince, Duke, Marquess, there is no female version of the title Earl. An Earl is regarded as the equivalent to a Continental Count, so the wife takes the title Countess. An example of this would be Sophie, Countess of Wessex , the wife of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex.

I hope this answers your questions!

© Marilyn Braun 2008

Related Article

Meeting Royalty and Nobility

Question: Untitled royal children

Cynthia writes...

Would love your take on royals who don't grant their children the same privilege - such as Princess Anne's children.

Thanks for your email. I've always felt that it was somewhat unfair to children of royalty to deny them what I would regard as their birthright. But as Princess Anne's children are in the female line, they were..never entitled to a royal title in the first place. She is said to have even rejected an offer from the Queen for her children to have noble titles. So Princess Anne's son was actually the first grandchild of a British sovereign to have no title whatsoever; from birth he was known as plain Master Peter Philips. Princess Anne's children are, incidently, the Queen's only untitled grandchildren.

Royal titles pass through the male line but there are restrictions on this. Because of Letters Patent issued on December 11, 1917 when King George V:

" restricted the style "His (or Her) Royal Highness" and the titular dignity of "Prince (or Princess) of Great Britain and Ireland" to the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign, and the eldest living son of the eldest living son of a Prince of Wales.

There is an exception to this. As I've mentioned, royal titles do not go through the female line; unless there are special circumstances. One such rare instance applied to the Queen when she was Princess Elizabeth. In November 1948 she was expecting Prince Charles and it was discovered that her children would not automatically become HRH Prince/Princess upon their births as they would be grandchildren in the female line. Therefore his Grandfather King George VI issued letters patent on October 22, 1948 so that all children of Princess Elizabeth would have royal titles.

A more recent example and one that has divided royal watchers is the daughter of Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex - Lady Louise Windsor. She is the grandaughter of a sovereign in the male line, therefore she is entitled to be called HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. However, at the time of his marriage, the Earl decided that any children born to him would not have HRH Prince/Princess titles. They would have titles as the son/daughter of an Earl - Viscount/Lady. Interesting to note that although this was decided, Letters Patent have never been issued to change this, therefore she could in effect, choose to be known by her rightful title at any point in the future. I understand why it was done, I can respect the decision to try to give their daughter a normal life, but by doing this she is denied her birthright. There were some reports that Prince Andrew's daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie would lose their royal titles and become Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugenie Windsor instead. Whether this is true or not, Prince Andrew decided that because they are male line grandchildren and entitled to royal status, it would be unfair to take their titles away from them.

While the relevance of titles in todays world seems to be reducing - meaning that being known as HRH Prince/Princess, especially if you're not the direct heir, is somewhat meaningless. But with a shortage of royal princesses, and princes for that matter, I don't see why having one more, in this case Louise, should matter. In effect the royal family would be reducing their royal titles to nothing, which I think is somewhat sad because it places the burden completely on Prince William and Prince Harry. What happens if they don't marry? Or die before having children? Hopefully we'll never have to find out.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like royal books? Visit Marilyn's Royal Bookstore!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: What is it like being a royal watcher?

Jerry writes:

You mentioned you wanted suggestions about what to write about. I'd love to know more about you. What's it like being a royal watcher? When did you start? What's been your favorite experience with royal watching? What sort of friendships has it lead to? The thing that differentiates your royal watching from everyone else's is you....

Well Jerry, thank you for your questions! I'll answer them one at a time.

What's it like being a royal watcher? When did you start?

My interest started the day Prince William was born - June 21, 1982. I was 10 years old and I remember hearing it on the radio. I've been fascinated ever since. Before this blog I was only a closet royal watcher. But now the secret is out! I'm happy now, because I no longer have to pretend to collect egg cups, sports memorabilia, or paperclips. I enjoy being a royal watcher quite a bit, and having an outlet for it with this blog is even better.

What's been your favorite experience with royal watching?

I would have to say *cough* appearing on tv *cough*

What sort of friendships has it led to?

It's led to several friendships - which I think is just wonderful. I've always felt that people who are royal watchers form a small, tight knit, community. At least that's the feeling I get from visiting various forums. In terms of royal blogging I think it's an even smaller world as there are only about 10 or so English language royal blogs.

The thing that differentiates your royal watching from everyone else's is you....

I don't know that I'm any more passionate about royalty than any other royal watcher or people who participate in royal forums. Maybe having *cough* internet talk show *cough* makes me somewhat different because I don't think there's anything else out there like that. But for the most part I put my pants on one leg at a time. ;)

© Marilyn Braun 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like royal books? Visit Marilyn's Royal Bookstore!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: Is Prince Harry ready to rule?

Should Prince William not be able to fulfill his role as the King of England, what preparation has Prince Harry had that would qualify him to reign?

In the royal family, there is a precedent of the second son succeeding the throne. I'm sure there are lots of examples of this being so* but two men who immediately come to mind are King George V and his son, King George VI. Neither of these men expected, or likely anticipated that they would become kings.

The future King George V, Prince George, Duke of York, became heir to the throne after his older brother, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale died unexpectedly at the age of 28. Prince George had been pursuing a military career, which was regarded as the most suitable occupation for the second son. Prince Albert Victor, at the time of his death third-in-line for the throne, was to be married a month later to Princess May of Teck, but he died on January 14th, 1892. Prince George then became heir, and in time 'inherited' his brother's fiance, the future Queen Mary.

Unlike his future son, Prince Albert, King George V had plenty of time to adapt to his new role before he himself became king in 1910. His own father, King Edward VII, despite being the longest serving heir to the throne - 59 years, had little training himself, as his mother Queen Victoria didn't allow him access to her papers. Despite this, King Edward VII went on to become a successful monarch who gave his name to an era. During his reign, King Edward VII made certain that his son was well trained when the time came for him to succeed.

King George V had five sons and one daughter, Edward - Prince of Wales, Albert - Duke of York, Mary - Princess Royal, George - Duke of Kent, Henry - Duke of Gloucester, and John - who died as a child. Edward had been destined to be king from birth and he eventually would succeed the throne in 1936 upon the death of his father. However, Edward decided to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson and his brother, Albert - who was seen as a rather unlikely candidate for the throne, became King George VI in the same year (incidently 1936 is known as the year of three kings). King George VI wasn't nearly as well trained as his father had been but he eventually became a good king. As the father of the present Queen, he ensured that she had the best possible training for her future role.

While it's hard to ignore precedent, I doubt that Prince Harry would have the same type of training. Is he qualified? Yes - from the moment of his birth. There really isn't anything that defines what criteria makes a good monarch. You'd be hard pressed to find a career counsellor who could tell you. Should something unfortunate happen to William, hopefully Harry will have plenty of time to adapt to his new role. He could have no better instructor than his grandmother.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

* if anyone knows of other examples, feel free to comment.

Question: Rank of the Royal Ladies

Thank you on your informative "Who is of Higher Rank?" article. However, what about the ladies? What are their ranks and how are they addressed (be they royal or non-royal)?

Thank you very much for your question.

I have written an article, called Meeting Royalty and Nobility, which may be helpful in terms of addressing them.

The ranking of the various royal ladies is a bit different. It goes by an order of precedence. In general you could say that the ranking, without taking into consideration the order of precedence, is as follows:

The Queen
Princess
Duchess (royal)
Countess (royal)

And then the noble titles would start, such as non-royal Duchess and Countesses. In the case of women in the royal family, the order of precedence is as follows:

The Queen
The Princess Royal
Princess Alexandra
The Duchess of Cornwall (unless accompanied by the Prince of Wales).

One would think, that because Camilla is the wife of the heir to the throne that she would automatically be the second lady in the land, but this is not the case. Because she chose to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall and not as The Princess of Wales, her position reflects the fact that she is a Duchess and not a princess. Were this the case she would outrank the Princess Royal, as Diana did when she was Princess of Wales.

I hope this answers your questions!

Thanks,

Marilyn

© Marilyn Braun 2007